Indeed, why would they have needed a C47 if there was no invasion of Europe possible?

Yorks are the obvious answer.

Moggy

Europe would certainly have been difficult if not impossible given the serious manpower issues faced by the British and Commonwealth forces later in the war, But my thoughts were also of the sterling work performed by the C-47 in both the Mediterranean and Far East theatres.

Yorks ? Wouldnt that have taken much needed production capacity away from Lancasters ? What about modified Sterlings , could production have continued without causing problems to other aircraft production?

Just to clarify, my responses were not motivated by any ideas that all British Aircraft were inferior, far from it . However I do think that when it came to Tanks, light armour , some infantry weapons and Naval aircraft the British fell far behind. Without American supplies and designs, they would have been in serious trouble.

Road racer, please read the previous posts in the thread, everything you are stating has already been answered, often repeatedly :rolleyes:

I have read the previous posts, something which you appear incapable of doing.

Are you unable or unwilling to address the points yourself then? I would again suggest that you do a little more research on the points raised.

Moggy,

If the Mossie was capable of being produced in sufficient numbers then fine it would certainly have been a far better aircraft with both reduced chances of being caught and reduced numbers of crew lost (2 instead of 3 in the Blenheim’s case ?) if she was caught. But the fact is that the RAF used fairly large numbers of Mitchells, Marauders, Bostons etc, So why didnt they produce enough Mossies ?

Your point about the “different path” is very well made and exactly what I was trying to get across with regards, for example, to the determination of the Soviet and Commonwealth to keep going, I just didnt make it in such a succinct , clear way !

But just when i think of it, I wonder what would the Allies have done without the C-47 ? What would the Allies minus America have used instead ?

Research events that never took place? 😀

Come back to reality! You are making assumptions based upon us conducting the war in the same manner as we would have done with the Americans. That is ridiculous, every change would have reactions that would affect events in ways that you nor I could really begin to comprehend.

Everything in this thread is conjecture, so don’t try telling me that there’s no way that we could have beaten the Germans. No point that you make is any more valid than mine.

If there’s anything that our history proves, it’s that the UK has a habit of getting out of tight spots!

ohhh Dear…..:rolleyes:

You cant research political and material influences on policy or moral ? You cant research what facilities and equipment would or would not have been available in certain circumstances? You cant research manpower availability ?

How can I come back to reality when, according to you, all we are dealing with is conjecture??? By the way it would be a good idea not to tell others that they cannot comprehend what may or may not have happened just because you cant, that is an assumption that even the most experienced historian will never make!!

I think it would also be a good idea to heed the advice given by Deano earlier “… You’re not really covering yourself in glory here.”

So , do you think the Afrika Korp could have been defeated with Crusaders, Matildas and Honeys ? Would Russia & the UK have continued to fight without the boost to moral that the advent of American involvement provided, Have you checked what Churchill’s thoughts were on hearing about Pearl Harbour and Germany’s declaration of war on the US ? How vital was the 2nd front in helping the Russians , could that 2nd front have been mounted without US men and material ? Could the Uk and the Commonwealth have managed without B-25s, B-26s , B-24s and C-47s never mind the P-40s, P-51s and P-47s ?

If you dont understand something , or you dont like having your points disagreed with, and then decide to go into attack mode, you are in for a somewhat difficult time here !!

Very true, but the British didnt really produce anything that could fulfill the more conventional bombing role they used the Blenheim for, something that they depended on the Americans for with the Baltimore, B-25 and to some extent the B-26.

What doesnt seem to have been considered is the political effect of the “discriminating” neutrality practiced by the US prior to their entry into the war and the moral support that this provided to those opposing the Axis. If this support hadnt been provided and if the US hadnt entered the war, then surely it is possible that the resolve of the UK and the commonwealth would have suffered, never mind the effect it could have had on Russia. It is surely possible or maybe even probable that Stalin would have fallen and a peace would have been negotiated with the Nazi’s if , for instance,they had captured Moscow. Then the entire might of the Nazi war machine would have been cut lose on the UK, and I doubt if she could have held out a 2nd time. Could the RAF have continued using Blenheims for much longer on raids into France ? Would El Alamein have been won without Grants and Shermans ? If it hadnt and Egypt had fallen , would the Uk have been willing or able to go on fighting? Would Churchill have remained as PM? There was after all, an element within the “ruling” classes who were sympathetic to Hitler’s viewpoints.

Without the direct involvement of the US an invasion of Europe or anywhere else would have been virtually impossible.Lets not forget the dangerously low manpower levels that were impacting UK infantry regiments by the time they got as far as the Rhine, can you imagine how far they and the commonwealth forces, minus the US , would have got into France before reaching those critical levels ?

j_jza80 , will just say that you need to do a bit more research.

Wonder what’s going to happen to the Catalina? Was pretty sorry looking a few months ago…